corporate law
In a significant development, the Bombay High Court delivered a judgment in the case titled Pooja Gagan Jain vs. State of Maharashtra on June 25, 2024, after reserving it on June 21. The court ordered the release of the minor accused involved in the Pune luxury car accident, which resulted in the deaths of two individuals, into the custody of his paternal aunt. The High Court deemed the remand orders issued by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) as illegal and without jurisdiction, subsequently setting them aside.
This ruling stemmed from a habeas corpus petition filed by the minor's aunt, who argued that the accused was unlawfully detained in an observation home. The petition was granted by a Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bharati Dangre and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Manjusha Ajay Deshpande. Notably, the court emphasized the importance of ensuring the minor continues psychological sessions post-release.
During hearings, the High Court questioned the JJB’s decision to remand the minor to an observation home after he had already been granted bail on May 19, 2024. The judges remarked that the remand effectively nullified the bail’s intent.
On May 19, 2024, the 17-year-old juvenile, identified as the son of a well-known Pune builder, allegedly drove a Porsche Taycan at high speed while intoxicated. He lost control of the vehicle, colliding with a motorcycle, leading to the deaths of two software engineers, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, in Kalyani Nagar, Pune. The investigation revealed that the juvenile had been drinking at a pub prior to the incident. Reports indicate that the vehicle dragged one of the motorcyclists before stopping after hitting another two-wheeler and a car.
Senior advocate Mr. Aabad Ponda represented the petitioner during the initial hearing on June 14. He argued forcefully for the juvenile's immediate release, stating that a juvenile granted bail cannot subsequently be placed in an observation home. Mr. Ponda highlighted that the bail remained active and that there had been no rearrest or cancellation of bail by a higher court, asserting that the minor was being held unlawfully.
Additionally, Mr. Ponda pointed out that rather than challenging the bail order, the authorities submitted an application citing public outrage and concerns regarding the minor's alleged addiction. He maintained that under Section 39(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, it was impermissible to remand the minor to an observation home while on bail. He further asserted that remanding the juvenile without cancelling the bail is not valid under strict laws like MCOCA or TADA, much less the Juvenile Justice Act.
The Bombay High Court, while granting bail to the juvenile, observed that the prosecution had not moved to cancel the bail, emphasizing that relief would not be denied on maintainability grounds. A Pune court had recently granted bail to the minor’s father in a related case under the Motor Vehicles Act, underpinning the legitimacy of the bail request.
Ultimately, the Bombay High Court determined, after reviewing the facts and materials on record, that it was appropriate to release the minor accused in the Pune Porsche car accident case. The Division Bench eloquently stated, "We are bound by law, the aims and objectives of the Juvenile Justice Act, and must treat him as any child in conflict with law separately from an adult, despite the seriousness of the crime." This observation encapsulates the court’s commitment to juvenile justice and due process.